Errorful learning of trivia questions and answers: The role of study time.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Ewa Butowska-Buczyńska, Maciej Hanczakowski, Katarzyna Zawadzka
{"title":"Errorful learning of trivia questions and answers: The role of study time.","authors":"Ewa Butowska-Buczyńska, Maciej Hanczakowski, Katarzyna Zawadzka","doi":"10.3758/s13421-024-01608-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Errorful learning-asking questions and forcing responding even before the correct answers are presented for study-has recently been proposed as a way of maximizing the effectiveness of study. However, much support for the superiority of errorful learning over standard learning via reading comes from studies employing pairs of words as study materials, which remain of little educational relevance. Studies using materials affording richer semantic processing, such as trivia questions and their answers, have shown benefits of errorful learning only when the errorful learning condition is granted additional time for formulating guesses. In the present study, we systematically examined the role of timing when comparing errorful learning and reading strategies applied to study of trivia questions and their answers. In Experiments 1 and 2, we obtained evidence for the superiority of errorful learning over reading when additional time was given to formulate guesses, but this superiority was abolished when the overall time to study was equated between the two learning strategies. We further examined the role of answer familiarity in Experiment 3, showing that incorrect guessing produced no benefit for learning regardless of whether the to-be-learned concepts were familiar or not. In Experiments 4 and 5, no benefits of errorful learning emerged when participants were required to guess responses to two different questions that shared a common set of possible answers. We conclude that the benefits of errorful learning for trivia questions emerge only when guessing gives more time to process target questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01608-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Errorful learning-asking questions and forcing responding even before the correct answers are presented for study-has recently been proposed as a way of maximizing the effectiveness of study. However, much support for the superiority of errorful learning over standard learning via reading comes from studies employing pairs of words as study materials, which remain of little educational relevance. Studies using materials affording richer semantic processing, such as trivia questions and their answers, have shown benefits of errorful learning only when the errorful learning condition is granted additional time for formulating guesses. In the present study, we systematically examined the role of timing when comparing errorful learning and reading strategies applied to study of trivia questions and their answers. In Experiments 1 and 2, we obtained evidence for the superiority of errorful learning over reading when additional time was given to formulate guesses, but this superiority was abolished when the overall time to study was equated between the two learning strategies. We further examined the role of answer familiarity in Experiment 3, showing that incorrect guessing produced no benefit for learning regardless of whether the to-be-learned concepts were familiar or not. In Experiments 4 and 5, no benefits of errorful learning emerged when participants were required to guess responses to two different questions that shared a common set of possible answers. We conclude that the benefits of errorful learning for trivia questions emerge only when guessing gives more time to process target questions.

Abstract Image

错误地学习小问题和答案:学习时间的作用
最近,有人提出了错误学习法,即在学习正确答案之前就提出问题并强迫回答,以此来最大限度地提高学习效率。然而,错误学习优于通过阅读进行的标准学习的观点,大多来自于使用成对单词作为学习材料的研究,而这些材料的教育意义仍然不大。使用能提供更丰富语义加工的材料(如琐事问题及其答案)进行的研究表明,只有在错误学习条件下给予错误学习者更多的时间来形成猜测时,错误学习才会带来益处。在本研究中,我们系统地考察了在比较错误学习策略和阅读策略在小问题及其答案研究中的应用时,时间的作用。在实验一和实验二中,我们得到的证据表明,当给予额外的时间来形成猜测时,错误学习优于阅读,但当两种学习策略的总体学习时间相等时,这种优越性就不复存在了。我们在实验 3 中进一步研究了答案熟悉程度的作用,结果表明,无论要学习的概念是否熟悉,错误的猜测对学习都没有好处。在实验 4 和 5 中,当要求被试猜测两个不同问题的答案时,错误学习并没有带来任何益处。我们的结论是,只有当猜测给参与者提供了更多的时间来处理目标问题时,错误学习才会给琐事问题带来益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信